ushahid
Senior Member
after 10 years Toronto will be a sexy looking city with all these projects going up.
- Thread starter Conrad Black
- Start date
Hanlansboy
Active Member
Lol! I've never thought of it as sexy, but....yes, if these proposals are built, very sexy indeed!
Strange Advance
Active Member
If the spacepod were included in the price of admission, fine, but as it is, a trip up on the elevator to the main viewing deck is a stratospheric $40/adult and $25/child/senior. For that money, an attraction like the zoo has infinitely more to offer. The extra trip to the spacepod used to be $5, but I'm sure it's much more now. The CN Tower is nothing less than highway robbery! Is anyone privy to the year-by-year tourism numbers? I know back in the days of yore, when the tower was federally owned and reasonably priced, it attracted about 2 million visitors a year, but there must be many, including bright-eyed tourists, now balking at the unconscionable cost.
Yes, I'm sure that's the case, and it's a pity. I actually liked the cylindrical design of the hotel towers.verticalvillage said:
isaidso
Senior Member
Considering they'd have to tear down the InterContinental Hotel, surely they'd build at least 1 of the hotel towers just to replace what they'd demolish?
maestro
Senior Member
Where do you get the idea they are tearing down the Intercontinental Hotel?
buildup
Senior Member
If the convention centre is greatly expanded, which I assume is the plan, you could still make a case for a bigger hotel.
CN Tower should charge market rates - why not?
I'd say on of the world's great views is worth $40 (twice the cost of an Adam Sandler movie).
In fact putting a cost there is probaby th eonly way of reducing the lineups.
CN Tower should charge market rates - why not?
I'd say on of the world's great views is worth $40 (twice the cost of an Adam Sandler movie).
In fact putting a cost there is probaby th eonly way of reducing the lineups.
maestro
Senior Member
At the same time, we don't necessarily know and Oxford likely hasn't decided how they want to redevelop the property otherwise they would have submitted something to get the zoning out of the way along side Mirvish. I just don't see why people continue to cling to some concept plan that will see revisions and probably to the point where the eventual submission bears little resemblance. I would also imagine Oxford's near future concerns are concentrated around 315 Front rather than a revenue generating, mixed use, convention centre complex.
Hipster Duck
Senior Member
Ok. Have to throw in my two uneducated cents here, but, just because the CN Tower is our landmark, and the means by which so many define our skyline, how long can we continue to use it as a reason not to breech the 300+ metre mark? We've come so far in so many respects, yet remain in the dark (pardon the pun) when it comes to building anything near the CN tower, let alone a tall tower. As far as tall towers go, our skyline has looked exactly the same since the 70's, with FCP, the CN Tower, Scotia Plaza (I know, that's from the 90's) and the various banking towers remaining the hallmarks of our dated look.
Isn't it time that we, when given the chance, replace our old landmarks with newer ones. Call it a lonely impulse of delight, but I beg the skyscraper gods, please, building us a few new super talls. As for for shadowing or loosing views, that's all part of grow, is it not? How many blocked views and shadows have been created in the last 10 years in the uptown, downtown and south cores? So why is it we're seemingly so terrified to break such an old taboo? Honestly, we're always bragging that we have the most construction happening in North America, why not have something really worth bragging about? Love them or hate them, can you imagine the visual impact on our skyline if Gerhy's proposal, Oxfords, and 1-7 Yonge's was built as originally designed?
I know just how many factors are at at play here, but maybe that the problem. City council takes them, rips them apart, and offers a modified counter proposal, the owners do the same, until we're left with a design but a mere shadow of what it was designed to be. I'm not saying build with no limits, most bylaws are there for a good reason, but just once, I'd love to see something over 300 meters built, with no so much as a whimper from city council. Just a wild fantasy? Probably, but if we're ever to break the hight phobia paranoia, we've got to start somewhere, just sayin....... (Let the comments, commence! Lol! That's fine, variety, and different view points, are the spice of life, and things are about to get very spicy indeed)
I kind of agree with you.
It's sort of ironic that Toronto, a city that is growing like bonkers, has built hundreds of highrises in its downtown core, yet a building from 1975 remains the tallest building in the city/country. It's also somewhat disappointing that I am secretly happy that FCP and Scotia Plaza haven't been usurped, because they have an iconic look that is desperately missing from our latest batch of office towers, all of which are glass-sheathed boxes that top out at 50 storeys.
The opposite would be Philadelphia. That's a city that has anemic growth, at least by Toronto standards, but it built/is in the process of building two iconic skyscrapers that are the city's new tallest and stand out for their architectural stature. Comcast I by Robert A.M Stern, and Foster's Comcast II.
Or consider NYC. It throws up a fraction of the towers that Toronto does, but they're supertalls by the likes of Renzo Piano and Christian de Portzamparc; skinny pencils in the sky that reaffirm the audacity of the Big Apple.
Ramako
Moderator
Nobody's saying that we shouldn't be over 300 metres because it would challenge the CN Tower as a landmark, but only that we shouldn't building 325 metre towers here because they would totally eliminate the classic view of downtown Toronto from the CN Tower. A 300+ metre tower at 45 Bay, for example, would create no such issues.
buildup
Senior Member
I think Stern is also planning a supertall in NY. Normally cities try but fail to lure landmarks; proud Toronto tries to obstruct them. We make them beg.
Last edited:
Hipster Duck
Senior Member
I'm still excited by Toronto's boom, but not because of the skyscrapers. I'm excited because of the transformation of the city's more low slung areas with excellent modernist midrises - Freedville, King East, the West Don Lands, Leslieville, etc. I also think we'll get our landmarks with this boom but, again, they'll primarily be lowrises: OCAD, AGO, ROM, Ryerson student centre, etc.
Watching the highrise boom in Toronto reminded me of watching the Olympics recently, where some countries sent seemingly dozens of athletes but none of them got to the podium. I would say that of the 100+ highrises built in downtown Toronto in the past 12 years, that I would classify the L tower and the Four Seasons as iconic, give Shangri La and the Ritz an honourable mention, and then call it a day with the remainder. Of course, there are buildings like Aura that stand out because of their height given their surroundings, but they also stick out because they're so mediocre.
junctionist
Senior Member
It's true that this high-rise boom has yielded too few architectural landmarks.
Big Daddy
Senior Member
Last edited:
Strange Advance
Active Member
I like them as well. By the way, that diagram is from SkyscraperPage, not SSC.
I agree.
I like the look of the Oxford towers quite a bit, but I feel to see any particular complementarity between them and the CN Tower.
42